[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54610-54622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0161]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 19, 2016, to August 1, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 2, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 15, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 17, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0161. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-
[[Page 54611]]
available information related to this action by any of the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0161.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0161, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be
limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under
consideration. The
[[Page 54612]]
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by
October 17, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)''
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to
address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is
located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-
Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all
adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail
copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper
copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance
with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission to the NRC,'' which is available on the agency's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on
the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will
not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To
be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the
document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that
provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General
Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need
not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative)
must
[[Page 54613]]
apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing
request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access
to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a hearing request and petition to intervene
will require including information on local residence in order to
demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2016. Publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16182A171.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, by
modifying the TS requirements to address Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01,
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML072910759), as described in Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds [Surveillance Requirements
(SRs)] that require verification that the [Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS)], the [Shutdown Cooling (SDC)] System, and the
[Containment Spray (CS)] System, are not rendered inoperable due to
accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable of performing their safety functions
and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the SDC System, and the CS System are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 54614]]
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15265A590.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would reflect the
name change from Duke Energy Florida, Inc., to Duke Energy Florida,
LLC.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability of any accident previously evaluated because no
accident initiators or assumptions are affected. The proposed
license transfer and name change is administrative in nature and has
no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or the operation and maintenance of CR-3.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because no
new accident initiators or assumptions are introduced by the
proposed changes. The proposed license transfer and name change is
administrative in nature and has no direct effect on any plant
system, plant personnel qualifications, or operation and maintenance
of CR-3.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve
changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity
or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities. The
proposed license transfer and name change is administrative in
nature and has no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or operation and maintenance of CR-3.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 23, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16175A292.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by
adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9 to the TSs for the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station, and H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant. The same changes are added as LCO 3.0.10
to the TSs for the Catawba Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station.
For the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the proposed amendment
would modify TS requirements for unavailable barriers by adding LCO
3.0.6 to the TSs. The proposed changes are consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2,
``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on
Supported System OPERABILITY,'' subject to stated variations.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased,
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of
[[Page 54615]]
LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk
assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the
margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated
low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core
damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early
release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the
Safety Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16172A010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a note permitting one low-
pressure coolant injection (LPCI) subsystem of residual heat removal
(RHR) to be considered OPERABLE in Operating Conditions (OPCONs) 4 and
5 during alignment and operation for decay heat removal, if capable of
being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no physical changes being made to the plant. The LPCI
mode of RHR is an automatic ECCS [emergency core cooling system]
function during OPCONs 4 and 5. LPCI mode is used in accident
conditions to provide cooling and mitigate accident conditions. The
proposed note would allow one LPCI subsystem to be considered
operable during alignment and operation for decay heat removal if
capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable.
The required number of operable ECCS subsystems in OPCONs 4 and 5
would not be reduced from the current requirement. Considering one
LPCI subsystem as operable when aligned for SDC [shutdown cooling]
does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
Although it will take longer to realign manually from SDC to LPCI in
the event of a drain-down event or accident, with the lower heat
loads and temperatures in OPCONs 4 and 5, the operator will have
sufficient margin to perform the realignment in the event of a
draindown event prior to core uncovery.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The LPCI mode of RHR is an accident mitigator, not an initiator.
This change will not reduce the number of required ECCS subsystems
during OPCONs 4 and 5. The change will permit the operability of one
LPCI subsystem while the components of that subsystem are aligned
and operating in the Shutdown Cooling mode of RHR. The change does
not alter current methods of plant operation nor does the change
make a physical change to plant equipment resulting in an unanalyzed
malfunction of equipment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change, which adds a note which will allow one LPCI
subsystem to be considered operable during alignment and operation
for decay heat removal if capable of being manually realigned and
not otherwise inoperable, does not exceed or alter a setpoint,
design basis or safety limit.
The basis of TS section 3.5.2 is to ensure sufficient ECCS
capacity to maintain core cooling in OPCONs 4 and 5. This proposed
change does not affect the required number of ECCS subsystems during
OPCONs 4 and 5; therefore adequate capability through subsystem
redundancy is maintained. The amount of time required to obtain
rated LPCI conditions is increased due to the manual realignment,
from the Main Control Room, of the suction valves and restart of the
RHR pump following LPCI injection conditions. However, this change
will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded
with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR [updated
final safety analysis report] and is consistent with NUREG-1433.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16181A097.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier
2 and Tier 2* Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information
and conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, in order to
make changes to the design of certain components of the auxiliary
building roof reinforcement and roof girders, and other related
changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the auxiliary building roof are to
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary
building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure
and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown
earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The
auxiliary building roof is designed for snow, wind, and tornado
loads and postulated external missiles. The proposed changes to
UFSAR descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in
the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. The thickness and
strength of the auxiliary building roof are not reduced. As a
result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is
not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There is no change
to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor do the changes described create any new accident
precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 54616]]
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are
proposed to address changes in the detail design of the auxiliary
building roof. The thickness, geometry, and strength of the
structures are not adversely altered. The concrete and reinforcement
materials are not altered. The properties of the concrete are not
altered. The changes to the design details of the auxiliary building
structure do not create any new accident precursors. As a result,
the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not
adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute
(ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690
provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the
auxiliary building structure conforms to applicable criteria and
requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the
margin of safety. The proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes
in the detail design of the auxiliary building roof. There is no
change to design requirements of the auxiliary building structure.
There is no change to the method of evaluation from that used in the
design basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the
in structure response spectra. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed
changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety previously evaluated.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A488.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Combined Licenses (COL) Appendix A Technical
Specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in
the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 information. Specifically, the proposed
departures consist of changes to the UFSAR adding compensation for
changes in reactor coolant density using the ``delta T'' power signal,
to the reactor coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant
flow trip function of the Reactor Trip System (RTS). Additionally, TS
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.3 is added to the surveillances
required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip in TS Table
3.3.1-1, Function 7.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds compensation, for changes in reactor
coolant density using the [delta T] power signal, to the reactor
coolant flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow reactor
trip function of the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR
3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-
Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares
the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in
each Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) division every 24
hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the
surveillance is also required to support operability of the Reactor
Coolant Flow-Low trip function. This change to the low reactor
coolant flow trip input signal assures that the reactor will trip on
low reactor coolant flow when the requisite conditions are met, and
minimize spurious reactor trips and the accompanying plant
transients. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1-1 aligns
the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with the
addition of the compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density
using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip. These
changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that
initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and
components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events.
These changes have no adverse impact on the support, design, or
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The response of systems
to postulated accident conditions is not adversely affected and
remains within response time assumed in the accident analysis. There
is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal
operation or postulated accident conditions. Consequently, the plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not
adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new
accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed change adds
compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density using [delta T]
power signal, to the reactor coolant flow input signal to the low
reactor coolant flow reactor trip function of the RTS. The proposed
change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the
Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1.
SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric heat balance to the calculated
[delta T] power in each PMS division every 24 hours to assure
acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As such, the surveillance is
also required to support operability of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low
trip function. The proposed change to the low reactor coolant flow
reactor trip input signal does not alter the design function of the
low flow reactor trip. The change to the COL Appendix A Table 3.3.1-
1 aligns the surveillance of the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip with
the addition of compensation, for changes in reactor coolant density
using [delta T] power to the flow input signal to the trip.
Consequently, because the low reactor coolant flow trip functions
are unchanged, there are no adverse effects that could create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds compensation, for changes in reactor
coolant density using [delta T] power signal, to the reactor coolant
flow input signal for the low reactor coolant flow trip function of
the RTS. The proposed change also adds TS SR 3.3.1.3 to the
surveillances required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip
specified in TS Table 3.3.1-1. SR 3.3.1.3 compares the calorimetric
heat balance to the calculated [delta T] power in each PMS division
every 24 hours to assure acceptable [delta T] power calibration. As
such, the surveillance is also required to support operability of
the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low trip function. The proposed changes do
not alter any applicable
[[Page 54617]]
design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis.
Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the
margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016, as revised on July 12,
2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML16071A404 and ML16196A099, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2*
and associated Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific DCD Tier 2
information). Specifically, the requested amendment proposes to depart
from UFSAR text and figures that describe the connections between floor
modules and structural wall modules in the containment internal
structures.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island.
The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet
seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.
The change of the design details for the floor modules and the
connections between floor modules and the structural wall modules,
and the change to more clearly state the design requirement that
these connections meet criteria and requirements of American
Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) N690, do not have an adverse impact on the
response of the nuclear island structures to safe shutdown
earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or
postulated accident conditions. The change of the design details for
the connections between floor modules and the structural wall
modules, and the clarification of design requirements for these
connections, do not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or
the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is
no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal
operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor does the change described create any new accident
precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to revise design details for the floor
modules and the connections between floor modules and the structural
wall modules, and more clearly state the design requirement that
these connections meet criteria and requirements of ACI 349 and AISC
N690. The clarification and changes to the design details for the
floor modules and the connections between floor modules and the
structural wall modules do not change the design requirements of the
nuclear island structures. The clarification and changes of the
design details for the floor modules and the connections between
floor modules and the structural wall modules do not change the
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and
fluid systems. The clarification and changes of the design details
for the floor modules and the connections between floor modules and
the structural wall modules do not result in a new failure mechanism
for the nuclear island structures or new accident precursors. As a
result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not
adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of
safety is reduced. The acceptance limits for the design of seismic
Category I structures are included in the codes and standards used
for the design, analysis, and construction of the structures. The
two primary codes for the seismic Category I structures are American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 and American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 349. These codes provide a margin of safety to
structural failure. The changes to the design of the connection of
the floor module to the structural wall modules in the containment
internal structures satisfy applicable provisions of AISC N690 and
ACI 349 and supplemental requirements included in the UFSAR, and
therefore maintain the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16168A399.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Technical Specification and Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information to update the Protection and
Safety Monitoring System (PMS) to align with the requirements in
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 603-1991,
``IEEE Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power
Generating Stations.'' IEEE 603-1991, Clause 6.6, ``Operating
Bypasses,'' imposes requirements on the operating bypasses (i.e.,
``blocks'' and ``resets'') used for the AP1000 PMS. The PMS functional
logic for blocking the source range neutron flux doubling signal shown
in UFSAR Figure 7.2-1 (Sheet 3) requires revision to fully comply with
this requirement.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or
[[Page 54618]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the PMS logic used to terminate an
inadvertent boron dilution accident which results in a source range
flux doubling signal. An inadvertent boron dilution is caused by the
failure of the demineralized water transfer and storage system or
chemical and volume control system, either by controller, operator
or mechanical failure. The proposed changes to PMS and Technical
Specification requirements do not adversely affect any of these
accident initiators or introduce any component failures that could
lead to a boron dilution event; thus the probabilities of accidents
previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not
adversely interface with or adversely affect any system containing
radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source
term; thus the radiological releases in an accident are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident analysis evaluates events involving a decrease in
reactor coolant system boron concentration due to a malfunction of
the chemical and volume control system in Modes 1 through 6. The
Technical Specifications currently provide administrative controls
to prevent a boron dilution event in Mode 6. The proposed change
would provide additional PMS interlocks and administrative controls
for prevention of a boron dilution event applicable in Modes 2, 3,
4, and 5. The proposed changes to the PMS design do not adversely
affect the design or operation of safety related equipment or
equipment whose failure could initiate an accident from what is
already described in the licensing basis. These changes do not
adversely affect fission product barriers. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change would add additional restrictions on the
source range flux doubling signal operational bypass to align it
with the requirements in IEEE 603 and provide assurance that the
protection logic is enabled whenever the plant is in a condition
where protection might be required. These changes to the PMS design
do not adversely impact nor affect the design, construction, or
operation of any plant [structure, system, and components (SSCs)],
including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or
a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely
affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function,
design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely
affected by the changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482,
Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16174A121.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone No. 8 completion date and
the physical protection license condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate
the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents,
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is
administrative in nature, there are no changes to these established
safety margins.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in
[[Page 54619]]
connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2) and Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New
London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25 and June 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the MPS2 and
MPS3 licensing basis by deleting the information in the final safety
analysis reports pertaining to the severe line outage detection special
protection system, updating the description of the tower structures
associated with the four offsite transmission lines feeding Millstone
Power Station (MPS), and describing how the current offsite power
source configuration and design satisfies the requirements of General
Design Criteria (GDC) 17, ``Electric Power Systems,'' and GDC 5,
``Sharing of Structures, Systems, and Components.'' A new technical
requirements manual (TRM) section, ``Offsite Line Power Sources,'' was
added to the MPS2 and MPS3 TRM supporting the licensing basis change.
Specifically, with one offsite transmission line nonfunctional, the TRM
requirement would allow 72 hours to restore the nonfunctional line with
a provision to allow up to 7 days (for Lines 310, 348, and 383) or up
to 14 days (for Line 371/364) if specific TRM action requirements are
met.
Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 328 and 269. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16193A001; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49:
Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61478). The supplemental letters dated February 25 and June 29, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015, as supplemented by letters
dated January 28, February 25, March 23, March 29, and May 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to (1) allow the use of Dominion nuclear safety
and reload core design methods; (2) allow the use of applicable
departure from nucleate boiling ratio design limits for VIPRE-D; (3)
update the approved reference methodologies cited in TS 6.9.1.6.b; (4)
remove the base load mode of operation that is not a feature of the
Dominion Relaxed Power Distribution Control power distribution control
methodology; and (5) address the issues identified in Westinghouse
Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-09-5), Rev. 1, NSAL-15-1, and
Westinghouse Communication 06-IC-03. Additionally, the amendment
relocates certain equations, supporting descriptions and surveillance
requirements from the TSs to licensee-controlled documents.
Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16131A728; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80
FR 52804). The supplemental letters dated January 28, February 25,
March 23, March 29, and May 2, 2016, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. A subsequent notice was published in
the Federal Register on June 13, 2016 (81 FR 38226), to include the
added clarification that the proposed amendment changes involve the
relocation of TS information either to the TS Bases or the Core
Operating Limits Report which are both licensee-controlled documents.
There were no changes to the no significant hazards consideration
determination as originally noticed.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket
Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and
50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated February 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
facilities' Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs) to provide
gap release fractions for high-burnup fuel rods that exceed the linear
heat generation rate limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11, of
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July
2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792).
Date of issuance: July 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 285 (Unit 1) and 281 (Unit 2), for the Catawba
Nuclear Station; 289 (Unit 1) and 268 (Unit 2), for the McGuire Nuclear
Station; and 401 (Unit 1), 403 (Unit 2), and 402 (Unit 3), for the
Oconee Nuclear Station. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16159A336; documents related to these amendments
[[Page 54620]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the
Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2; NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, for
the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: The amendments revised
the facilities as described in the UFSARs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61480). The supplemental letter dated February 1, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated April 25, 2016, and June 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the as-found
lift setting tolerance for main steam line code safety valves, revised
the nominal reactor trip setpoint on pressurizer water level, and
revised pressurizer water level span in the Technical Specifications
(TSs).
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance. The updated final safety analysis report
(UFSAR) changes shall be implemented in the next periodic update to the
UFSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
Amendment No.: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16155A124; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR
19646). The supplemental letters dated April 25 and June 8, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 17, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
Waterford 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The
amendment is in compliance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b.
Date of issuance: July 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16159A419; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80
FR 52805). The supplements dated March 3, April 28, and July 12, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: August 19, 2014, as supplemented
by letters dated January 20, March 31, April 30, August 24, October 9,
October 30, November 9, and December 16, 2015, and February 12 and
April 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment raised the Technical
Specification (TS) temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to
the plant from the ultimate heat sink from less than or equal to (<=)
100 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to <= 102 [deg]F.
Date of issuance: July 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 1-189; Unit No. 2-189. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A438;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The
amendment revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17088). The supplements contained clarifying information, did not
change the scope of the requested change, and did not change the NRC
staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated January 21 and July 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 4.8.1.1.2.g.1 related to draining each fuel oil storage tank,
removing the accumulated sediment, and cleaning the tank. The
amendments require the licensee to place the content of the SR in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to be controlled in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.''
Date of issuance: July 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 233 and 183. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A397; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments
[[Page 54621]]
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 29, 2015 (80
FR 58518). The supplemental letters dated January 21, and July 15,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated July 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 17, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to relocate the reactor coolant system (RCS)
pressure-temperature (P-T) limits from the TS limiting condition for
operation to a new licensee-controlled document--the Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report. The actual RCS P-T limit curves, as
currently established in the CNS TS, and all associated parameters,
which are valid through 32 effective full power years of facility
operation, are not affected by the TS amendment.
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16158A022; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR
67802). The supplemental letter dated March 17, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions, Shutdown Margin (SDM)''
consistent with the proposed changes in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler, TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown
Margin [SDM] Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' Prior to
the amendment, the plant's SDM (i.e., the amount of reactivity by which
the reactor is subcritical) was calculated using a shutdown moderator
temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). This value was
conservative for standard fuel designs. However, new, advanced boiling-
water reactor fuel designs can have a higher reactivity at moderator
shutdown temperatures above 68 [deg]F. Therefore, the amendment
implemented TSTF-535, Revision 0, which modified the TSs to require the
SDM to be calculated at whatever moderator temperature produces the
maximum reactivity with moderator temperature greater than or equal to
68 [deg]F.
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16119A433; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21600).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 8, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated June 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced Technical
Specification (TS) Figure 4.1-1, ``Site and Exclusion Area Boundaries
and Low Population Zone,'' with a text description of the site in TS
4.1, ``Site Location.'' In addition, typographical errors were
corrected in Section 1.1, ``Definitions.''
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16146A749; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69712). The supplemental letter dated June 13, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Sections 1.1, ``Definitions,'' 3.4.9, ``[Reactor
Coolant System (RCS)] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and 5.6,
``Reporting Requirements,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel
heatup and cooldown rate limits and the P/T limit curves with
references to a P/T Limits Report (PTLR).
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16180A086; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR
76328). The supplemental by letters dated December 18, 2015, and
February 19, March 11, and March 30, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
[[Page 54622]]
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: September 2, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.3.b to require
verification that the MNGP alternate nitrogen system required pressure
be greater than or equal to 1060 psig [pounds per square inch gauge]
instead of greater than or equal to 410 psig as previously stated.
Date of issuance: August 1, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 190. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16196A303; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61483).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 31, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license
to permit use of the Fuel Rod Performance and Design 4 Thermal
Conductivity Degradation (PAD4TCD) computer program for the second
cycle of plant operation.
Date of issuance: July 25, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 14 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16174A354; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10682).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-19213 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P